Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> writes:

> Scott told me in San Francisco that the process did not permit an
> AD to introduce an individual document, that the RFC-Editor had to
> be the gate for all non-WG documents.  He said that something had
> been successfully appealed due to using this process.

Both of these are inconsistent with my understanding.

In the old days, I think ADs did more shepherding of documents that
could have gone through the rfc editor submission process. I know that
at some point, Scott took the position that he just told people to go
through the rfc editor submission process and he didn't personally do
it. I *think* that was just his personal decision, and I can't recall
any sort of IESG agreement on this. I also think a big motivation for
this was to ensure that such documents got entered into a formal
system so they wouldn't get lost. This was long before ID tracker, and
the "formal system" was that the RFC editor kept track of the document
and sent reminders if we didn't act on one.

Also, I was not so long ago asked to shepherd 4 SLP documents through
the system. Two have been approved as experimental publications. We're
currently having fun with a third one (slp/srv) and the fourth one is
stuck because a related WG wants it blocked.  So, I've done this quite
recently. 

Thomas